Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wolf/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2020 [1].

Wolf

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup:
  • "An Iberian wolf in the Community of Madrid trotting in summer fur." - reads a bit wierdly. This is just the local authority area round the city. Better piped to "near Madrid".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their vision is as good as that of humans" - including colour vision? Is so, should be said.
No. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • North America populations - I added Asian links - I think several states etc here need lks. plse check
  • "having been exterminated in the British Isles in the 18th century" - the usual date given is 1680, in Scotland. In England they were extinct much earlier.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In culture / Further information: List of fictional wolves" - better merge this with the "In fable and literature" hatnotes.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • break para at " Isengrim the wolf,". The following para needs a break too, prob before Kipling.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered to have had more influence than any other literary work in forging the wolf's negative reputation in the western world." Seems very overstated! The wolf hardly had a positive reputation in 1696.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "memoir Never Cry Wolf is widely considered to be the most popular book on wolves" - evidently big in Canada, and published in Russia, but was it ever published in the US or UK? Perhaps needs qualifying.
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break para at "The wolf is featured on the flags of the Confederated Tribes ..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Livestock depredation has been one of ..." another long para - brk at "The majority of losses..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small farmers surprised by a wolf" - "Petis paysans" = literally "small/young peasants/country people" Use "Country children" or something?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf

[edit]

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [2])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are not important. No other FA mammal article describes them. LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tracks are arguably important, as you are much likely to find tracks then to actually see a wolf in the wild. But I don't insist; the decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly I lost my notes. Will have to read the last part of the article again … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack? LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the Pawnee, Sirius was the wolf star – If we find the association with wolves in so many cultures, can it have a single origin?
Or maybe independent people notice the constellation is shaped like a dog/wolf. This is more relevant to the article on Sirius. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although portrayed as loyal, honest and moral, Isengrim is forever the victim of Reynard's wit and cruelty – So Isengrim is the good, and Reynard is the bad? This does not really reflect the poem, where Isengrim is also characterised as greedy and dumb.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wolf in this story is portrayed as an allegorical sexual predator – only in a few very early versions there are elements of a sexual predator. I'm not sure if this interpretation is generally accepted, and the sentence "is portrayed as an … predator" is imo wrong. I would be more prudent and use "antrophomized" instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

[edit]
Note Please see the reasons for a change of vote at the end of the source-check section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11
51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Many essential changes have been made. Not all, but enough to merit promotion. The ones remaining can be made after promotion; indeed I will be making some myself, or at least, discussing them with the nominator. If I have left any boldface "opposes" dangling, please disregard. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time for a proper review but will do one of the lead. Here are a few questions:

  • The wolf is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed features, particularly the ears and muzzle.
  • What other features are there in Canis species that can be assigned a degree of pointedness?
  • If there aren't or if there are, but not readily identified by a common reader, would it be simpler to say, "... by its less pointed ears and muzzle."
  • The wolf is nonetheless closely related enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them.
  • Is there a reason that the (presumably) post-Crick-and-Watson expression "closely related enough" is preferred to the more common "related closely enough?"
  • The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur.
  • And the summer coat?
  • What is bushy other than the tail?
  • Would it be better to say, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier? That way you get around having to say anything about the summer coat.
  • "although" is not needed with "predominantly."
  • Gray mottled with what? Predominantly brown?
  • This is probably obivous, but for rank beginners like me, it may help if you tell us, "recognized by whom."
  • Would it be clearer to say, "Of all members of the genus Canis, the wolf is most specialized for cooperative game hunting; this is demonstrated by ..."

More coming soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of the things that you asked but I will not be doing anymore, sorry. This article has had a copyedit pre-FAC and during this review has had four text reviews. At this point, reviewing wording is tedious. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes in the first few sentences. As for your refusal to make other changes, neither copy editors nor FAC reviewers typically review for coherence in relation to the sources. The sentence, "The winter fur of a wolf is long and bushy and predominantly mottled gray, although nearly pure white, red and brown to black colours also occur," for example, as you must know, has been in the article for years, taken from the IUCN status survey (2004), p. 124, which says, " General appearance and proportions are not unlike a large German shepherd dog except legs longer, feet larger, ears shorter, eyes slanted, tail curled, and winter fur longer and bushier, and with chin tufts in winter. Fur is thick and usually mottled grey, but can vary from nearly pure white, red, or brown to black." When you say, "Winter fur is bushy," it is a statement of contrast. That is why I asked about the summer coat and suggested, "The winter coat is thicker and the tail bushier." I could see incoherence, but at that point did not know the source. Now that I know, I can see that the sentence is not faithful to the source it is taken from. Why don't you paraphrase the IUCN description in some loose manner? I am trying to help you. :) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all. Who recognizes the 38 subspecies is in the body. I was already told to remove Mammal Species of the World from the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I realized that. Please see my scratched bit above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now carefully read the lead and see no further issues. I have skimmed the rest of the article. It meets all the FA criteria. I'm delighted to see a vital article, the kind whose absence I typically bemoan. My only regret is that (for some reason) I did not see this FAC submission earlier. I'm happy to support this article for promotion to an FA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Unless I missed something, I think we're still waiting for source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I reached out to a few people. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axl? Casliber? Nikkimaria?? Ian Rose has stated on the FAC talk page that I just need a source review for reliability and formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my note about about the IUCN source paraphrase. I don't have time to do a proper source review, but will make sure that the lead is reliably based on sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not cited for fur color. A different source is used in the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

I have now done a source check of the rest of the lead by comparing it with this version of May 2019 (in which the sentences were cited). I believe this is enough, as many sentences in the lead have not changed substantially since. The sentences are reliably sourced. I have also done spot checks for a dozen sentences in the rest of the article. I'm happy to report the sources are reliable and have been paraphrased faithfully. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95 has also looked at source formatting before the FAC submission. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied a bit of the formatting just now. Source 122 (as of this writing) had no page number. It might exist in the page history; sometimes these things are inadvertently deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks F&F. I hope you understand my pedantry but I need to confirm whether the source reliability check was for the references in general (per our usual source reviews for reliability and formatting) or just for those used in the citations that were spotchecked... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ian Rose: No probs at all. The check involved checking every sentence in the lead (by going back in the article's history to the time when the sentences had citations and then checking the reliability of the source and the accuracy of the paraphrasing) and spot-checking nearly a dozen citations for the same in the later sections. If you tell me how the usual source review is done, I'm happy to do that. (Does it involve using the citation bot?") I don't know what checking the format involves. I did notice that some citations are in Harv/Sfn format and others in "Citation/Cite-book-etc" format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "harv vs citation" difference is because some books are being used extensively throughout and others are used for only a specific page or page range. I have done this in my other FACs with no problem (see pinniped and bat for examples). LittleJerry (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Totally understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose? LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: @Johnbod: Ian hasn't answered. What are the usual source reviews for reliability and formatting? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like what you did was what we refer to as a spotcheck. See first para here: User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates#Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Will attend tomorrow AM. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat tricky for me to check the sourcing, because many references are books to which I don't have access. The reference "Larson" does support the statement at the end of "Taxonomy", subsection "Subspecies". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The references to Freedman and fan all support the article's text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but Fowler already did a spotcheck. We just need checking for formatting and reliability. LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler? LittleJerry (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've had my coffee. Will attend, with industry and application today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by F&f continued

[edit]
There are a total of 314 citations to 205 sources-pages.
  • There are eight books for which the "Sfn" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have ISBN information and have been published by reliable publishers:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 163 times.
  • The two most cited books are:
  • Mech & Biotani, cited 64 times, and Heptner & Naumov, cited 39 times
  • In a Reference section of 314 citations, neither of these two sources constitutes an instance of over-reliance.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 34 other books for which the "cite book" format has been employed.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all books have been published by reliable publishers, have ISBN information, and have been cited no more than a few times:
  • Exceptions: None
  • These books have been cited 54 times.
  • Except in the instances mentioned below, all citations have associated page ranges:
  • Exceptions: None
  • Except in instances mentioned below, all articles have been published in reputable journals, have the usual format of volume, issue, page numbers, and DOI information (other than old articles, field reports):
  • Exceptions: None
  • There are 16 web sites for which the "cite web" format has been employed.
  • Except in instances listed below, all web sites are live, reliable, and their citations have access dates.
  • Exceptions:
  • Tucker, P.; Weide, B. (1998). "Can You Turn a Wolf into a Dog" (PDF). Wild Sentry. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-12-08. (no access date)
  • Woodford, Riley. "Alaska's Salmon-Eating Wolves". Wildlifenews.alaska.gov. Archived from the original on July 26, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2019. (dead link)

Please fix the last two LittleJerry. This completes my source review, Ian. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Etymology section, there are no issues. The article has already has spotchecks from you and Axl. It doesn't need anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note from F&f

Ian and LittleJerry I am very sorry. I made a huge effort to do the source review right. As you will have noticed, I have examined each of the 213 cited sources for issues of general reliability, wiki-layout etc. That part of the review is finished. However, I had an uncomfortable feeling about the spot checks I had done. I had done them hurriedly because the article was languishing and I consider it to be the kind of vital article I exhort people to write; LittleJerry had worked hard on it, and I wanted to help him. Unfortunately, I didn't do such a good job of spot-checking the Etymology section; the Status and Conservation section and the Relationships with human section. So, I examined them more carefully. There is an issue, one of WP:DUE. Greater weight is assigned to North American sources and interpretations, and a more generally to Euro-American ones in each of these sections. Here are but three examples:

Etymology. The source says this; the page says this What the Saxon clans called themselves is irrelevant to the etymology of the word "wolf." But it was the second paragraph that began to bother me. It had colloquial names in (historical) north America. I wondered where the other names were, that the complete etymology above would posit existing in a large swathe of Indo-European-speaking belt in Europe and Asia, not to mention in other linguistic cultures.
Status and Conservation. I noticed that the population of only the Himalayan wolf was mentioned in India. A WP page listing various national populations was linked, but it is sourced to: Mech, L. David; Boitani, Luigi (2010), Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, University of Chicago Press, pp. 323–, ISBN 978-0-226-51698-1, Note: This information was obtained by assembling data from available bibliographic sources and the informed and subjective estimates provided by the experts of the IUCN/SSC Wolf Specialist Group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (Boitani 2000). Except for a few local situations that are well known, most of the numerical estimates should be considered no more than indicative of the general status of the populations. There are no recent reliable estimates for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. At this point, I did become concerned but thought I/LJ can fix this—it is a matter of finding an updated source. So, I moved on to the next section:
Relationship with human section. The wolf is a creature of many cultures. I can't speak for all cultures, but I am conversant with South Asian culture, having edited SA-related WP articles for the greater part of 13 years. The wolf has been a part of Indian culture going back its (and humanities) earliest extant texts in Indo-European languages, the Rigveda. There is a goddess Sarama; the wolf makes appearances in the Ramayana and Mahabharata; it is a part of the ancient Jataka tales (see here); of records of various political dispensations, e.g. 100,000 were killed in the 19th-century before Kipling wrote about the Law of the Jungle ("... the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack"). Even today, daily in India, the wolf makes news. Here is just one example from one newspaper, The Hindu, from the last few days: Wolfing down watermelons. If you read the RWHC section, however, you would have little clue. This is when I began to have a sinking feeling about the article. And, mind you, South Asia is just one region. These sections, especially the last, need more work than can be done now. Ian, I would like to support this article's promotion, but am worried about these issues. Please tell me how I can help LJ. I know he has worked hard. I would support a provisional promotion subject to LJ fixing these issues during the next month. If that is not possible, sadly, I would have to urge the nominator to withdraw the article and resubmit in a month after he has fixed these issues—which I would really hate to do. Sorry, I tried, made a big effort to make it happen. My respect for LittleJerry has not diminished one whit. This is a complex topic and it needs an enormous amount of work. I will shortly change my support above to Support promotion with a proviso, or withdrawal without prejudice I don't know if it is allowed but this is my considered view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other issues. There are 17 pictures of wolves from Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia). There are 4 from Asia. Yet Asia has more wolves according to the International Wolf Cener than Canada, the US, and Europe (not including Russia) put together. The contiguous states of the US have 5,500 wolves; China has 6,000 wolves, India has 4,400 to 7,100 wolves. There are 5 wolves shown from the lower 48 states, 1 from India, none from China. This is not looking promising in terms of being representative in other aspects as well. It may be that none are available demonstrating some aspect (diet, behavior), but then they should be compensated somewhat in other aspects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made the necessary changes. Given this is English Wikipedia, I'm going to look at English-speaking sources. North American and European wolves are also more well-studied than wolves from other parts, The main bibliography is sourced to the top books on wolves and what they cover is reflected in the article. I noted that the PIE may be the root word also for "lupus" and did not mention the others because "lupus" is the species scientific name. There are also way more wiki images of wolves in NA and Europe compared to India and China. And I can't reference wolves in other cultures if I can't find reliable sources. I tried to find more sources on the wolf in Indian mythology but the they were either low quality or I can't have access to them to verify their accuracy (I looked at the culture section of the Indian wolf article) However, these sections now cover Europe, NA, India, Central Asia and East Asia. LittleJerry (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help you. Kipling's doggerel references the Wolf as an essential part of the Jungle, its law, about which he wrote his books; although I've known it by heart for years, I don't think it is clever. The wolf appears as Akela in the frontispiece of the Jungle books, drawn by John Lockwood Kipling. There is Mowgli, himself, the wolf-boy. Kipling would not have been making wolves such an integral part of the Jungle Books if they weren't an integral part of the culture about which he was writing. The wolf is referenced in 21st-century scholarly references on the the Rigveda, among the oldest Indo-European texts; in the Mahabharata; in the Ramayana; in the Indian Buddhist Jataka tales in Mughal art or literature You are not helping your case when you say, "The most well-studied cultures (Greeks, Romans, Norse, Navajo)" I have made an inordinate effort doing your source review; I did so because I wanted to see it promoted, to give proof that the sourcing was water tight. Why would I now have reservations about the ideology of this article if didn't think they were serious, not amenable to quick bandaid fixes? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I have suggested a provisional promotion subject to your resolving these issues over the next month. It will take that much time. I don't want to see a vital article come this far and not make it. I understand your frustration. Again, it needs your commitment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really would like more opinions on this. FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Johnbod, Sainsf, Axl? Their are a billion things that reference the wolf. I checked the links you give and none of them are helpful. The first book on "Mughal art/literature" merely references "Who wanted to be struck down by a lion's paw, to be torn by a wolf's fangs?" You can't expect me to think that is significant enough to put in the article. The first book for "Mahabharata" states "In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger". Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like "the wolf is referenced in text x". I already put more stuff on the wolf in East Asian and Indian culture to balance things out and a reference to the Jataka tales. I even add more stuff on Indian wolves in the "attacks" and "hunting" subsections and the population of wolves in India. What more do you want? We already have an article on the Indian wolf were the culture section can be expanded. We also have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" article forks. LittleJerry (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't know how to engage you, when you blank out portions of your statements above, after I have very specifically replied to them. See here. The various book links are not meant to be examples of usage of the word "wolf" in Sanskrit literate, but a pointer to the wealth of references that underlie the importance of the animal in the culture. The specific examples in the Mahabharata for example are the name "wolf-belly" for one of the protagonists, Bhima, see here, from an old reference Again, the issues are deeper than can be figured out by your nickel and diming the links I'm giving you as pointers to just one kind of Asian literature, in this instance one that predates the Latin, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it is not "India" that I want in there; India came to mind because I know something about South Asian culture. There is a whole swath of Asia, the stomping ground both of the wolf and and of Indo-European languages, that is underrepresented. Other non-IE cultures are probably also under-represented. I already mentioned this: there are more wolves in Asia (including Russia) than there are in the US, Canada, and Europe. (The demography of the page is all wrong, by the author's own acknowledgement.) Reading this page one could easily come away thinking that the wolf is primarily a north American mammal, and the few that are not in north America are in Europe. Look, I want to see this article as an FA, but I don't want to see it as a biased FA, because those are not easily fixed. I am offering you an option: give us some committment that you will spend some serious time fixing these issues in the month after promotion. The others you have pinged can be a part of this enterprise as well. The problem is there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mythology/Folklore" and "Fable/Literature" subsections now contain references to North America, Europe, Russia, Central Asia, India and East Asia. That is a wide enough net. Not everything can make it into the article. That's why we have a "Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology" fork. Nothing about the population of wolves in an area tells us about what is significant. The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves. The conservation of wolves in Yellowstone is more studied and talked about than most other places. There is more to talk about with wolves in the lower 48 US, where wolves have been exterminated and brought back and have expanded, than Russia. which has had consistently large population throughout history that has maintained its historical range. LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Capitoline Wolf is more well known and significant than most of the Asian cultural wolves." According to whom? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for conservation of reintroduced species, such as in the US, it too can go into spinoff articles such as you are advocating for folklore. Rewilding (conservation biology), for example. There is no reason to make America's atoning for its past sins (still much in evidence around where I live; only coyotes are here not wolves) the blue eyed boy of wolf conservation around the world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that its easier to find discussions of the Capitoline Wolf in the wolf literature including books on wolves in culture like Lopez and Marvin, while I have to dig around to find things on the references you what me too. Sarama seems to be more associated with dogs than wolves. And again, there's more to talk about with regards to certain countries conservation then others, regardless of population size. Let's see what the others say. LittleJerry (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have done nothing thus far. As I probe the article more, I'm finding the bias to be more extensive and deeper than I had hitherto thought. You stated above, "The first book for 'Mahabharata' states 'In the great forest, a wolf can kill a lion that is unprotected. Let Shikhandi not be like a wolf that kills a tiger'. Again, why is this significant? Am I suppose to put things like 'the wolf is referenced in text x'?" But your text already has that: "The Bible contains 13 references to wolves, usually as metaphors for greed and destructiveness. In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have used wolves as illustrations of the dangers his followers, whom he represents as sheep, would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16 and Acts 20:29).[173]" " To this you have now added, as an afterthought: "Wolves are also mentioned in texts of the Far East. ..." In other words, you have listed references in the Bible, a much later text, written in the lands that constitute the fringes of the wolves range; yet you are objecting to the Rigveda composed 1500 BCE, containing content of earlier Indo-European mythology from Central Asia.
Again, India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia. Yet there are an order of magnitude (factor of ten) more references to Europe (in the pictures chosen, in the other mention) in the article. Again the wolf is as much an Asian animal as it is North American or European. Asia has had longstanding stable populatiosn that are larger than North America and Europe combined. Yet there is a picture of a wolf from Sweden (which shares a population of 400 with Norway) than one from China or India. It is not like those pictures are not available, and I can easily upload half a dozen more from Flickr creative commons. As I probe more, I see that the bias is relentless, throughout the article, in the topics chosen, in the photographs chosen. I have been again and again encouraging you to agree to make the non-trivian changes needed in the article with a firm promise. But nothing has changed. I am therefore changing my vote to an oppose, for I don't expect you will make the needed changes after if you are not even acknowledging them. I'm sorry no reasonable person can say I did not try to help you. Again, issues of bias are highly problematic, much more so than other violations of the FAC criteria. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was asked for opinion: I personally can't see any bias, Asia is represented to the right extent. You say "India and China together have more wolves than all of Europe minus Russia", but that would mean that the section should be mostly about wolves from Russia, where most wolves life. No, this can't be a criterion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as stated before, there far are more image available of wolves in Europe and North America than in other places. The main picture was chosen because of the quality of the image and the fact that the Eurasian wolf is the nominate subspecies. The Bible is used because there is actually a tertiary source that describes what how the Bible portrays wolves. The idea that wolves should be represented by population in this article is absurd. Wolves from certain populations are studied more than those from others. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominotypical subspecies and type localities had to do with what Linnaeus and others studied first and where the specimen came from, in the wolf's instance,"European woods and cold.", which Oldfield Thomas more than a century later changed to "Sweden." just as he made the type locality of the tiger "Bengal," after Linnaeus's "Asia," or that of the leopard "Egypt," after Linnaeus's "India," or someone else pegged the lion on the Barbary coast because that is where Linnaeus received his specimen. But the picture on the Tiger page is not from Sundarbans or anywhere else in Bengal, but from the other end of India (whose discussion LittleJ is himself party to); the picture in the FA Lion is not from Barbary, but from Namibia; the Leopard infobox picture is neither from India nor Egypt but Serengeti. Type localities (in biology) or type sites (in archaeology) have more to do with what was studied first by whom. Harappa is the type site of the Indus Valley Civilization (which for that reason is also called the Harappan civilization, but the picture on the IVC page is of Mohenjodaro, the bigger, better preserved site, with more artifacts. The Indian wolf is also a Eurasian wolf, as is the Chinese. If they are not Eurasian, what are they Australian, Antarctican, African? The Bible stuff and most of the pictures for that matter have been in the Wolf article long before LittleJerry made an edit. See here. I would like to see that discussion about tertiary sources. In this article's first unsuccessful FAC the closing note specifically mentioned US bias. It was a problem then. I'm by far not the first one to note it. Please take this critique seriously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO "bias". We used the images and the information that we have available. It doesn't matter what the population of wolves in Sweden are, the image perfectly illustrates the animal better than any other. The images of the other animals are there for the same reason. If you're going to bring up lion the cultural section for Africa is the smallest dispute that being were lions live and the "Conservation/Africa" section focuses on lions in critically endangered parts of Africa, not where they are most abundant. Thanks for proving my point when you stated "Asia has had longstanding stable population that are larger than North America and Europe combined." So that shows that there isn't much to write about in regards to conservation. You can't just declare that this FAC failed when the consensus is against you. You already showed that the article is has consistent citing and the sourcing is accurate. Everyone elese did the rest. Your complaints of "bias" are not agreed upon. Ian Rose, please weigh in. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source reviews check for the latter half of 1 (c). ("claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;") As reviewers, we discuss wording, grammar, and other prose issues and get 1 (a) out of the way. This I did in the lead. We assume good faith, but we still check 1d ( neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias (this is checked by comparing the paraphrasing with the original source etc); So the bias is not yours. I still assume that you have presented the views of your sources fairly. What we are not able to check for easily ais: the first half of 1 (c): "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;", i.e. DUE. and 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. So, the first half of 1 (c) and 1 (b) As reviewers we are under pressure to get on with it, especially in articles we think are on topics we like, which this one clearly is. So, I did support the article on the basis of 1 (a) of the lead, the second half of 1 (c) and 1 (d). That took quite a bit of time. As you must be aware, doing the kind of source review I did was not easy. In supporting the article I certainly did right by your effort. I haven't checked but it could be that there are more published sources on the US (minus Alaska) wolf, and more public domain pictures. But the US wolf had been decimated. It is a reintroduced species and it is small. Asia has 100,000 wolves; US has 4,500. Things like that take time to seep into the brain of a reviewer such as I. But when they do, I become aware that in supporting the article in its curren t version, I'm not doing right by the wolf. 1 (b) is takes time to seep in. It is an undervalued criterion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't treat Asia like one country or united political/economic/cultural unit like Europe. There's the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, India and China, ect. The Eurasian subsection covers Europe, post-Soviet states, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. That's comprehensive. The culture sections cover Europe, Native America, Russia, Middle East, Central, South and East Asia. That's comprehensive. If you want me to cut down on conservation in the lower 48, I will do that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that both the North American (occidentalis‎) and the Eurasian wolves have over 200 images at wikicommons. The Indian wolf just has 43. And why focus on populations of countries and not subspecies populatuons? The Eurasian wolf probably has a population greater than the Indian and Chinese wolf combined. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the number of 100,000 for Asian wolves appears to include all of Russia as well. But Russia is also part of Europe so some of those number can go there. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are frustrated with the slow pace of the FAC review. I am sorry I appeared toward the tail end of the usual life span at FAC; I wish I had seen the article earlier. But as I have explained, I have to do what I feel needs to be done. We are on the same side. The problem will not be resolved by quick fixes. Consider pictures, for example. Just in a few minutes I found or uploaded these pictures of the South Asian plains wolf (File:Indian wolf Gujarat grassland.jpg, File:Indian Wolf.jpg, File:Wolf Islamabad Pakistan.jpg, File:Indian Wolf Photo Dhaval Vargiya.jpg in art File:The Two Jungle Books 1895 Akela, the Lone Wolf.jpg) the Himalayan wolf (File:Himalayan wolves.jpg, File:Canis lupus himalayensis.JPG) which you do have in a distant view, the Chinese (File:Dalian Liaoning China Forest-Zoo-01.jpg), the Arabian wolf (File:Arabian wolf in Jordan.jpg, File:Arabian Wolf Al Ain Zoo 1 leicht verbessert.jpg) which you have in an unfocused one from Israel. Pictures are important because they correct the imagined phenotype of the species, which over a large part of its range, is a much leaner creature (even in the Himalayas) that it is in North America or Northern Europe. Fixing the problem will take time. The Russian wolf is mostly not in Europe, but in the Steppes and Siberia. Russia has 30K, Kazakhstan and some small Central Asian countries around it have 30K, ... I'm sorry I'm not here to endlessly argue with you especially when you seem not to have the interest of the wolf in mind, only that of your nomination. Sorry, this is as far as I go. If you agree to make a serious attempt to fix the issues during the next month I am happy to support the nomination, as I've already said. But I am not seeing any interest on your part. You've now added an unfocused picture from Mysore India, as if to say that is what I'm interested in seeing in the article. I'm tired. This is it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are there to illustrate the sections and hardly any of the ones you listed do. You have not been very helpful in exampling what you what. You're not clearly stating about how many images should be from each region and if they are useful in illustrating a section. That's the only image of an Indian wolf I could find that is useful (showing then in a pack). You also do not state how much of each culture should be talked about. Are you expecting two paragraphs on Asian wolves and one on European wolves? Why is the current cultural section not balanced enough. I can't do what you want if you're going to be vague. And again why are you focusing on country populations rather then say subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But fine, I'll want to see what Ian or another administrator says about this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a real problem. We naturally just have the best photos from regions where people are more likely to take good photos of wolves and upload them to Commons or Flickr under free licences. Of course, that means European and American wolves are overrepresented, but if we have to choose between a really good photo of an American wolf doing something, and a mediocre photo of, say, an Indian wolf doing the same, we should go with the best photo. There is a similar issue with sources; of course English language sources are more likely to focus on populations in the West. I could understand if this was about the human article, and Europeans were overrepresented, but in all seriousness, the wolves are not going to complain. And in any case, the article does show wolves from all over the world. As for having the best interest of the wolves in mind, I don't think anyone holds them more dearly here than William Harris, and he took part in the image selection. FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: Because the subspecies keep coalescing and sometimes splitting with increased genomics knowledge. It was Panthera leo leo (the African lion) and Panthera Leo persia (the Indian lion) a few years ago, now its all Panthera leo leo so should we only show one picture of the African lion, only talk about Masai myths because countries don't matter? A few years ago, it was Pathera tigris tigris the so called "nominotypical subspecies," ie the Bengal tiger, and Panthera tigris Corbetti (after Jim Corbett; the Andamese tiger), Panthera tigris amoyensis (Siberian), ... sumartrae, etc etc. Now it is only Panthera tigris tigris and Panthera tigris sundsomethingorother (for the Sumatran), so should we only show a picture of the Indian tiger, and one of the Sumartran forget Siberian, Indo-Chinese, Cambodian, Thai, Burmese because they don't constitute a separate subspecies anymore. Countries do matter, their cultures matter. It was the 19th century culture of the US that made the wolf extinct in the US (except a few lucky ones in Minnesota), the bison nearly extinct, the beaver extinct on the east coast, the turkey (of all birds) extinct in Plymouth. It was the 20th century culture that has brought them back a little, not much, from the brink. I'm tired also of you guys pinging each other. You don't think I can ping people? I make a point, you change the argument; I make another point; you remove your previous argument, Now you've pinged someone who apparently chose the images, (when was that?) but didn't find the time to do this FAC review. ... seriously what is going on here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged them because they were involved in the article FAC and did reviews (see above). FunkMonk even did the Good Article review. William Harris wrote a lot of this article, not just choosing the pictures. I'm trying to get a consensus on whether this article needs the drastic changes you say they do. I not going to spend another month on this just because of one person with flawed arguments. No you can't ping anyone outside of this aside from an FAC administrator. My other arguments still stand and have not changed them I just thought of new ones too. I have accommodated you has much as I could, I added more Asian wolf images, I trimmed down the US 48 conservation paragraph, I add more Asian cultural references but that's not enough for you. You think coverage should be proportional to population regardless of what the actual sources cover and what information is available. (By the why the subspecies of tiger still exist, [3]) LittleJerry (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you attempting to counter the IUCN's 22 expert Cat specialist group's final report of late 2017, cited by 91 other scholarly articles in Google scholar with an article submitted to a journal in March 2018, and published online in July 2018, and in print in December, which has been cited by 8 others? You've made some changes to be sure, in the images, taken from the ones I hurriedly exhibited as a sample. The issues are much deeper; putting words in my mouth will not solve them. Anyway, I have other WP responsibilites. See my user page. Other FACs. This was not even on that list, when out of concern that this article was not moving, I put them on hold to do a source review. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Hi, or woof if that is more apt. That was an interesting read, and mostly comprehensible to a lay reader like myself. But I do wonder about the idea of banded guard hairs. I had thought that banding patterns involved different colours of hair growing in different proportions on different parts of the body. Are you sure that there are individual hairs that have a banded colour? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Banding refers to Agouti (coloration) which I have now liked. LittleJerry (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

[edit]

FN172 (Shi, Li) shows a check ISBN message that you might investigate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wolf/archive1&oldid=948251311"